Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 626

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 5 of the 5 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world

Open access
BRADSHAW, COREY J. A., SODHI, NAVJOT S., PEH, KELVIN S.‐H., BROOK, BARRY W.·2007·Global Change Biology

Abstract

With the wide acceptance of forest‐protection policies in the developing world comes a requirement for clear demonstrations of how deforestation may erode human well‐being and economies. For centuries, it has been believed that forests provide protection against flooding. However, such claims have given rise to a heated polemic, and broad‐scale quantitative evidence of the possible role of forests in flood protection has not been forthcoming. Using data collected from 1990 to 2000 from 56 developing countries, we show using generalized linear and mixed‐effects models contrasted with information‐theoretic measures of parsimony that flood frequency is negatively correlated with the amount of remaining natural forest and positively correlated with natural forest area loss (after controlling for rainfall, slope and degraded landscape area). The most parsimonious models accounted for over 65% of the variation in flood frequency, of which nearly 14% was due to forest cover variables alone. During the decade investigated, nearly 100 000 people were killed and 320 million people were displaced by floods, with total reported economic damages exceeding US$1151 billion. Extracted measures of flood severity (flood duration, people killed and displaced, and total damage) showed some weaker, albeit detectable correlations to natural forest cover and loss. Based on an arbitrary decrease in natural forest area of 10%, the model‐averaged prediction of flood frequency increased between 4% and 28% among the countries modeled. Using the same hypothetical decline in natural forest area resulted in a 4–8% increase in total flood duration. These correlations suggest that global‐scale patterns in mean forest trends across countries are meaningful with respect to flood dynamics. Unabated loss of forests may increase or exacerbate the number of flood‐related disasters, negatively impact millions of poor people, and inflict trillions of dollars in damage in disadvantaged economies over the coming decades. This first global‐scale empirical demonstration that forests are correlated with flood risk and severity in developing countries reinforces the imperative for large‐scale forest protection to protect human welfare, and suggests that reforestation may help to reduce the frequency and severity of flood‐related catastrophes.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x

Cites

5 of 5 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 5 references

Cited by

See all 626

Metadata

Authors
BRADSHAW, C. J. A., SODHI, N. S., PEH, K. S. ‐., & BROOK, B. W.
Venue
Global Change Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2007-08-21
Volume
13
Issue
11
Pages
2379-2395
ISSN
  • 1354-1013 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2486
OpenAlex
W2022052741
Cited by
626
References
5
FWCI
18.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x
The paper
BRADSHAW, C. J. A., SODHI, N. S., PEH, K. S. ‐., & BROOK, B. W. (2007). Global evidence that deforestation amplifies flood risk and severity in the developing world. Global Change Biology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01446.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.